Congratulations Peter an excellent summation, cheers HG

Congrats Peter,
You make sense...Would you like to give CIS authors some pointers on how to present an argument properly?

I'm going to read more of your work to see what practical options you have in mind. Perhaps you could write again with more detail on how.

Yes Peter, perhaps you could tell us how exactly governments are going to achieve these wonderful outcomes. Will we all just have a vote on how much of other people's stuff we help ourselves to? Certainly much better than people being free to decide for themselves, I must say. I presume if we can just concentrate enough power we can make society that much better. If people don't agree, they always have the option of going to prison, right?

If a majority vote for a crime, does that mean it's okay? What else do you have to offer by way of ideas?

Peter,

I've tried to describe the situation over say, twenty years, in which governments around the world have beeen trying save on their expenditures and have brought on, what public choice sympathises refer to as, social dilemmas. Social dilemmas are when a government, to save on expenditure, prefers to create another social dilemma to make it look like it is still doing something.

My question is this: instead of creating all these social dilemmas, why can’t we spend the money to fix the problem initially?

The public choice approach is wrong in its belief that we need less government - they seek less government but in creating new probems actually extend government, so even on their own terms they have been shown to miss understand political reality. I prefer to think in the terms set forth by Hugh Stretton - we do not need more or less government just better government.

Please refer to my article ‘Disability services – efficient, standardised, impersonal’.